Anna Comnena (1083-1153), daughter of Alexius I Comnenus, Emperor of Byzantium (1048-1118), in the “Alexeide”, the biography of her father Alexius I written by her, describes the Norman Bohemond of Hauteville (1051-1111), in those years her father’s enemy, but by whom she was evidently fascinated:

“Era un uomo tale, per dirla in breve, quale nessuno come lui fu visto nella terra dei Ro-
mani né barbaro né Greco; costituiva, infatti, stupore degli occhi al vederlo e sbigottimento a sentirne parlare… nella statura fisica era alto tanto da superare di quasi un cubito tutti gli uomini più alti, era stretto di ventre e di fianchi, largo di spalle, ampio di petto, forte di braccia, e in tutta la struttura del corpo non era né esile né corpulento, ma ottimamente proporzionato e, per così dire, conformato al canone di Policleto; vigoroso di mani e ben saldo sulle piante dei piedi, robusto nel collo e nelle spalle; …la carnagione, in tutto il resto del corpo, era bianchissima, ma il volto si arrossava col bianco, i suoi capelli tendevano al biondo,… gli occhi azzurri esprimevano, nel contempo, coraggio e gravità. Il suo naso e le narici spiravano liberamente l’aria, che attraverso il petto assecondava le narici e attraverso le narici l’ampiezza del petto; …si manifestava in quest’uomo un che di piacevole, che, però, era infranto dallo spirito spaventoso che promanava da tutte le parti; infatti l’uomo, in tutta la sua persona, era totalmente spietato e selvaggio, sia per la sua possanza che per il suo sguardo…”

“He was, to put it briefly, a man like no one else in the land of the Romans, whether barbarian or Greek; for it was a wonder to the eye to see him and a dismay to hear of him… in physical stature he was so tall that he surpassed all the tallest men by almost a cubit, he was narrow in belly and hips, broad in shoulders, broad in chest, strong in arms, and in the whole structure of his body he was neither thin nor corpulent, but excellently proportioned and, so to speak, conformed to the canon of Polyclitus; strong in hands and firm on the soles of his feet, robust in neck and shoulders; … his complexion, in all the rest of his body, was very white, but his face was red with white, his hair was verging on blond,… his blue eyes expressed, at the same time, courage and gravity. His nose and nostrils freely breathed the air, which through his chest followed his nostrils and through his nostrils the breadth of his chest; …there was something pleasant about this man, which, however, was shattered by the fearful spirit that emanated from all sides; for the man, in his entire person, was utterly ruthless and savage, both in his power and in his gaze…”

The French chronicler Orderic Vitalis (1075-1142) in his “Historia Ecclesiastica” tells us, however, that Bohemond’s real name was Mark, and that his Norman father Robert Guiscard (Duke of Apulia and Calabria, 1015-1085), having learned the legend of the biblical giant Behemoth, nicknamed him Bohemond.
He participated in the Epirus campaign against the Byzantines, was a commander in the First Crusade called by Pope Urban II in 1096 (led by Godfrey of Bouillon, Raymond of Toulouse, and Godfrey’s brother Baldwin), becoming lord of the Principality of Antioch (Photos 1, 2).

Upon his death in 1111, Bohemond of Hauteville was buried in the mausoleum erected by his mother, Aberarda, adjacent to the south façade of the transept of the Cathedral of San Sabino in Canosa di Puglia, modeled on the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem (Photos 3, 4). And it is at its entrance that the medieval bronze door, probably the most fascinating of the ancient doors, is located.

Together with the door of the Palatine Chapel in Palermo, this is the first Norman commission and dates back to the first half of the 12th century. It replaces the Byzantine model with Islamic stylistic references and revives the Western tradition of solid bronze casting, without a wooden core.
It was thanks to trade between the 10th and 11th centuries and the strong presence of Western merchants in the Islamic East that Islamic-manufactured objects reached the West, favoring the introduction of Arabic ornamental elements.

The door is 260 cm high and 202 cm wide, and is made up of two unequal panels, slightly different in height (Photo 5): the left panel is made from a single cast bronze slab approximately 4 cm thick. An ancient gap at the back was filled with the addition of a later slab (Photo 6); the right panel, on the other hand, is made up of four separately cast panels joined together by interlocking bronze bars. The two panels are so different that they cannot be made simultaneously and in a coordinated manner.

The composition of the door’s bronze alloy is 71.6% copper, 10.81% lead, and 16.18% tin for the right door; 65.53% copper, 14.72% lead, and 18.53% tin for the left door.
It is not entirely clear why the left door is made of a single 4 cm thick sheet, while the right door is composed of four cold-joined sheets, about half as thick. The joints are concealed by the frames cast directly onto each of the four sheets, and are overlapped in a symmetrical pattern (Photos 7, 8). The difference in the execution of the two doors (one whole and one in 4 parts), the difference in the decorations: the left one is “smooth” and the right one is crossed by horizontal joining frames, the left one with three 30 cm diameter discs positioned symmetrically, and the right one with two smaller discs positioned at the top and bottom and with a very different type of decoration from that of the discs on the left, the decoration of the two central panels in damascening with characters from the Altavilla family, suggest that two doors were cast at different times.

The right door was certainly and specifically cast for Bohemond’s mausoleum immediately after it was built. The left door, however, is most likely reused, as evidenced by the two interventions that adapted it to its new purpose: the long Latin inscription in praise of Bohemond, whose text continues the one surrounding the dome of the mausoleum and which was interspersed among the existing decorative elements, inserted piecemeal into the free spaces of the door (Photos 9, 10, 11, 12);

the other intervention consists of two applications at the centre of the two upper discs after having scraped away from them the original six-petal flower visible at the centre of the lower disc (Photo 13): on the central disc the lion’s head door-holder was applied (Photos 14,15), on the upper one a small sculpture of the Madonna and Child (no longer existing) was applied, as H. Swinburne testifies since the 18th century in “Voyages dans les deux Sicilies en 1777” and as demonstrated by the three recesses for the attachment and the writing surrounding it MARIA MATER DEI and IHS FILIUS MARIAE (Photos 16, 17); the left door, reused, was then personalised, Christianised and, in part, westernised.

Imagining the door before its reuse, we see that it features abstract ornamentation in very low, two-dimensional reliefs, graphic rather than plastic, typically Islamic. The repeated motif in the circular rings of the discs is an imitation of Kufic script and has no meaning (though perhaps the word “yumn,” meaning “happiness,” also found in contemporary decorations in the Palatine Chapel in Palermo, appears in all three). It could be a local creation imitating Islamic artifacts, perhaps made years earlier. Indeed, it was thanks to trade between the 10th and 11th centuries and the strong presence of Western merchants in the Islamic East and the West that Islamic objects arrived, favoring the introduction of Arabic ornamental elements into Western artifacts.
In the right door, the two smaller discs feature dense Kufic-style plant decorations, with horse figurines visible in the upper one. above the lower one (Photo 18,19) an inscription tells us that the author of the door was Ruggero da Melfi: “Sancti Sabini Canusiii Rogerius Melfie campanarum fecit has ianuas et candelabrum”; the decorations engraved in the two central panels with characters of the Altavilla family would seem to be imitations of Byzantine damascening but only a few details such as the faces, feet and hands are inlaid in silver, while the rest of the figures have engravings so thin that they do not allow the insertion of the silver thread of the damascening; and furthermore the overall style, especially that of the clothes, is more Western than Byzantine. In the upper panel Bohemond and his brother Ruggero are depicted kneeling in front of a small sculpture of the Crucifix which has been lost (as demonstrated by the traces and the two quadrangular support holes), in the upper panel the three standing figures are said to be Ruggero II, Guglielmo and Tancredi holding hands.

While Michelangelo was busy with the colossal sculpture of David, on April 24, 1503 the Opera del Duomo commissioned another important work: the execution of 12 marble Apostles to decorate the niches of the pillars under the dome of the Cathedral in “heroic” size, that is, about two meters and twenty centimeters high. Michelangelo was supposed to deliver one a year. The arrival of the marble blocks from the Carrara quarries occurred between 1504 and 1505, and the first to be started was the St. Matthew. He managed to rough-hew only a part of it and in 1505 he left for Rome, rescinding the contract on December 18, 1505. He may have temporarily resumed the work in 1506, on his return to Florence after the quarrel with Pope Julius II and his escape from Rome.

Raffaello, who came to Florence in 1504 and remained until 1508, was so struck by Michelangelo’s St. Matthew that he made a study drawing of it.

The saint is a powerful, vigorous figure, with a frowning face, and he seems to emerge from the not yet sculpted block, bringing forward a bare leg with a twist to the left; his chest is crossed by a band (which he will have seen when studying Donatello’s Sacrifice of Isaac of 1421) as do the Madonna in the Vatican Pietà and the Boy Archer of the French Embassy in New York.

Vasari in his “Vite”. Writes:

…Così abbozzata mostra la sua perfezione, ed insegna agli scultori in che maniera si cavano le figure de’ marmi, che senza venghino storpiate, per poter sempre guadagnare col giudizio, levando del marmo, ed avervi da potersi ritrarre e mutare qualcosa, come accade , se bisognassi…

…Thus sketched it shows its perfection, and teaches sculptors how to carve figures from marble, without being distorted, so as to always be able to gain by judgment, by taking away some marble, and to be able to portray and change something, as happens, if necessary…

San Matteo is preserved in the Museo dell’Accademia in Florence.

Michelangelo si era impossessato della tecnica scultorea del “non finito” fin dalla sua a prima opera, la Madonna della Scala, eseguita nel 1491, a 16 anni.

Questa tecnica presuppone che l’ opera in cui viene applicata sia stata terminata, perché Michelangelo ha lasciato alcune sue opere incompiute, e in questi casi ovviamente non siamo difronte alla “tecnica a non finito”.
Ma anche dove tale tecnica è stata volutamente eseguita, si possono distinguere differenti modalità. Nello stiacciato donatelliano della Madonna della Scala i due putti in alto sono volutamente appena accennati, creando nello spettatore alcuni sottili stati d’ animo: l’ attenzione viene indirizzata sulle parti definite della scultura e il senso impressionistico rende sconosciuto e fascinoso il loro agire, lascia allo spettorare la possibilità di vedere qualcosa che non è completamente formato, di “proiettare” cioè su di essi quello che la sua immaginazione gli detta. Queste caratteristiche fanno nascere il senso di mistero che alla fine si riverbera su tutta l’ opera.
Tale tecnica verrà fatta propria dai pittori impressionisti dell’ ‘800, e ci permette di capire quanto la scultura di Michelangelo, nel ‘500, fosse “moderna” e innovativa.
Michelangelo ha usato questa stessa tecnica ma in maniera più pesante e profonda in altri suoi capolavori, dove crea un senso di sospensione delle figure in attesa di nascere, ancora in parte imprigionate nella materia; l’ esempio più chiaro lo si ha nei quattro Prigioni,

che se è vero che non furono terminati, è altrettanto vero che Michelangelo ha eseguito lo sbozzo dei loro blocchi di marmo in modo particolare e non ortodosso, probabilmente per fermare meravigliosamente il momento della liberazione dell’ anima delle sculture dalla materia; si entra quindi con i prigioni nel dubbio: non terminati ma anche in parte eseguiti con molto “non finito”?
Dubbio in quanto i due Schiavi eseguiti nel 1513-1515, prima dei Prigioni scolpiti nel 1525-1530, furono considerati terminati e finiti; ma nel volto dello Schiavo Ribelle la tecnica del “non finito” appare in modo evidentissimo nel volto.

Questo dubbio nasce con forza anche nella Pietà Bandini, gruppo che sappiamo mai del tutto terminato da Michelangelo. Ma i diversi livelli di “non finito” del corpo e del volto di Maria (in contrasto con la politezza del corpo di Cristo ma non del suo volto né della sua mano sinistra), del busto di Nicodemo non ci permettono di avere una risposta certa.

Anche l’uso della sagrina per finire le superfici di alcune sue opere, come nei corpi del Tondo Pitti ad esempio, ci riportano ad un uso sottile del “non finito” voluto e ricercato da Michelangelo in tutte le sue possibilità.

Maggiori informazioni su queste sculture qui

In November 1518 Michelangelo, in Florence for the façade of the Basilica of San Lorenzo, purchased a piece of land in via Mozza (today the last part of the current via S. Zanobi which opens onto via delle Ruote) and in 1519 there he had his sculpture studio built of around 200 m2, with a small garden at the back.
Before moving permanently to Rome in 1534, he had worked on the Medici Tombs for the New Sacristy of the church of S. Lorenzo.

On 9 April 1519, a block of marble that he had purchased in Carrara, in the Fantiscritti quarry, was brought to him in a cart pulled by 5 oxen, and subsequently many others for the New Sacristy and for the enormous project of the Tomb for Pope Julius II.

In 1534 he moved permanently to Rome, leaving wax and clay models, marbles and sculptures in his studio in Florence, which were stolen during the siege of Florence in 1529. Some were later recovered or remained, in particular the four Prisoners (or Slaves) unfinished, also designed for the tomb of Julius II.
In fact, in the first pharaonic project, this should have had 16 to 20 prisons one and a half times larger than life at the bottom, which emerged from and emerged from the block of marble. As we know, the first project did not come to fruition because in 1513 the tomb was redesigned in smaller forms where the Prisoners should have become 12. In 1516 a third project made the tomb even smaller and the Prisoners should have become 8. In the following 2 other projects increasingly reduced in 1526 and 1532 they would become 4. In the definitive project of 1542 (the sixth) the Prisons were no longer included.

In 1550 Eleonora of Toledo, wife of Cosimo I, purchased the Pitti Palace to move her family and the entire court there, including the land on the rear façade of the Palace, which she had transformed into the splendid Boboli Gardens.

The four Florentine Prisons included in the project for the tomb of Julius II and then no longer needed remained in the studio in via Mozza and were donated in 1564 by Leonardo Buonarroti, Michelangelo’s nephew, to Grand Duke Cosimo I.
Duke Francesco I, son of Cosimo and his successor, had Buontalenti build an artificial cave with several rooms covered with fake rocks between 1583 and 1593 (Vasari designed the entrance), in which he had the 4 Prisoners set as if they were struggling to be born and out of the rocks. And they remained there until the early 1900s when they were taken to the Accademia Gallery.
They were subsequently reinserted into the original positions of the plaster replicas.

The anatomical study of the Bearded Slave is surprising: the muscular torso in torsion, the right arm raised in the exceptional pose of holding himself and clutching his bent head. Despite being the most finished of the four, the powerful spread legs held by a band, still united to the rock that generates them as well as the still unformed left hand, give an exceptional sense of awakening, of powerful strength, of a Pagan divinity in the process of appear in the Olympus of the gods, characteristics made vibrant also by the surfaces that show the marks of the chisels with which Michelangelo was giving birth to them.

The Slave Atlas, unfinished, seems to have his head inside the block of marble which holds with effort both his legs spread apart and bent and his left arm whose muscles are in tension. The figure tries to free itself from the stone from which it was born and it is the unfinished state that amplifies and highlights the energy that the Slave is about to unleash.

The Awakening Slave: a powerful male figure turns in the marble that still grips him. His face is rough-hewn. The right leg and the left arm, although still hinted at, unlike the torso which is finished, form an “S” curve which amplifies the sensation of awakening not yet free from the rock in which it is stuck. Also in this Slave, as in the other three, the limbs and anatomies are massive and powerful.

The Young Slave is little more than rough-hewn, the only part to which Michelangelo gave a first smoothing is the knee: the part of the body that protrudes and which first emerged from the marble. The giant seems to wake up as he emerges from the rock that wants to give birth to him. Even the pose of the bent arm covering part of the face and the outstretched knee speak of a birth. And in fact he is the youngest of the four. The only muscular masses are those of the torso, barely mentioned, but even so they speak of divinities of great strength and power, power that the slave takes from the earth and the rock from which he is detaching himself.

More information on the bronze Young Slave or Prisoner here.

Read more about the bronze Bearded Slave or Prisoner here.

Read more about the marble Bearded Slave or Prison here.